TIPRR 8

In tenet 9 of the Ten Tenets, it states that “What is valued in literature is the ‘silent’ showing and demonstrating of something, rather than the explaining, or saying, of it.” In my English classes on creative writing back in high school, my English teacher pursued the necessity to clearly explain what is happening and never do the “telling” of that thing. We had to show what was happening, not tell what was happening in the story. What seems to be paramount in this tenet is that discussion of an idea as merely an idea is poor use of “literature” and therefore a disservice to the art form. Instead, literature should be “showing” what is happening and allowing the ideas to organically grow from the context of the action itself rather than the imposition, by the author, of meaning because of self-reflexive discussion or the mere words used to didactically imply a specific agenda. I would say in film this is possibly demonstrated by our recent watching in Film History of “M” and how the action was played out without the subtext of music helping us to feel a particular way but instead we are shown the story and derive our own meaning from the unfolding of events. This approach in our study of media would have use concentrating on what is “happening” in regard to the media act more so than a concentration on the idea agenda of the author. This could be useful if we are trying to understand the moral implications of the actions taken in-and-of-themselves rather than the stated purposes and objectives of the media authors. Such a separation would be useful in determining through analysis, however, if the author is necessarily meeting their prescribed agenda or not – a step to a full analysis of the media.

For me, from a Leavisite approach, the moral argument of the music video is a look at “commitment to the self” and “commitment to the other” and ultimately asks which commitment will bring lasting happiness. Of course, the disaster is that when you do take for granted the other and commit only to yourself, no one ends with happiness. The meaning is inherent in the lyrics, first of all, in the altered, reprised chorus, “You don’t care how it hurts / Until you lose the one you wanted / Cause you’re taking her for granted / And everything you had got destroyed.” This is displayed in the course of action as the female character in the “male role” as the police officer, despite the possible “improvement” that is alluded to that a girl would do a better job in being a boy (i.e. “a better man”) is subverted by her actions not being unlike those that could be expected of the man, as is also reflected in the lyrics which say merely that we (both sexes) believe that we would do a better job but are, in fact, different in our actions regardless of what we think. Of note is that she, in the male role, actually continues to approach the role from an inherently female perspective having the “come ons” from men when it would be expected that she, if truly fulfilling the male role, would be doing the predatory role that the men were portraying and doing the “coming on” to the men. Thus, a woman in the same position would still be a woman in her actions (more about acceptance of male flirtation) but would nonetheless be no different than the man if merely concerned with commitment to self over commitment to the other. The shift at the end between perspectives shows that it is possible for both to achieve the same moral grievance and emphasizes that if the individual (regardless of gender) is only concerned with themselves, everyone will be unhappy.